What I'll propose is flat out never going to happen (not in the next 50 years), but join me on a thought experiment. Tell me why this would fail to improve politics in the United States. Or tell me if you think it would work.

I'd propose three things to improve politics in the United States:

Do away with political parties.

Do away with the primaries.

Implement instant runoff voting.

My interest in politics is barely above nil, but I'm curious enough to know what people think of the above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

The problem with the party system is that since '96, it seems even more tribal, more "us" against "them," more "we are good" versus "they are evil."

This attitude does not promote cooperation.

What is worse is that one party has taken over a majority of state government and gerrymandered districts that make even less geographic sense than previously so that the elected official does not fear re-election or any responsibility to the minority - therefore a vast minority across the nation are no longer represented.

This is what occurs with "tribalism."

Get rid of parties - no labels.

Let's get ideas and working together back in vogue.

Partisanship is an unavoidable consequence of politics; I balk at the notion that we'd be better off if we abolished political parties altogether, if even such a thing were possible. I would argue we need more political parties to break the two-party stranglehold, offer more diverse perspectives on governance, and put a greater emphasis on coalition-building, but I doubt that's going to happen in the near future. On the other hand, the current primary system has become toxic: party primaries are more likely to determine the most ideologically extreme candidates than most qualified. I propose blanket primaries: all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party, and the top two votegetters move on to the general election. This format has been used in the state of Louisiana for some time, and has recently been adopted for legislative elections in Washington and California. Results of these electoral reforms in the Golden State have been promising thus far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm on board with all of this plus let's get rid of the electoral college and go back to every vote counts. 1 person = 1 vote.

I'm against eliminating the Electoral College on practical and philosophical grounds. I believe a national popular vote would be contrary to the idea of American federalism: we are both citizens of the United States and residents of our respective home states, and getting rid of the state element in presidential elections would diminish the significance of state governments in relation to the federal government. A national popular vote would turn presidential elections into battles for votes in the largest metropolitan areas, and issues of rural areas and smaller communities would be ignored wholesale by the candidates. And God forbid there be a contested result that demands a recount; it could take years before we find out who the winner is.

That said, the fact that 48 states allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis is ridiculous. The distribution of electors is directly based upon a state's congressional delegation; two of those people are senators that represent that given state at-large, while the remainder represent their own individual districts within the state. Maine and Nebraska have electoral rules that guarantee the winner of the statewide popular vote only two of its electoral votes (the senators), with its remaining votes going to the winner of each individual House district. I propose that every state allocates its electoral votes this way.

No current Republican candidate for president is going to spend money campaigning in California, where it is unlikely that a Republican could win the popular vote. But California's House delegation consists of 15 Republicans; that's more than the entire electoral vote of 41 states. Texas has 12 Democratic members of Congress, more than entire electoral vote of Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Colorado. District voting would mean the end of swing states: presidential candidates would be forced to spread their money across the map, and they would not be able to take those large winner-take-all blocs of electoral votes for granted.

Of course, that idea requires reforms against gerrymandering to ensure fair, politically-neutral congressional districts. This is 2013; we have computers and geographic information systems. There are waysto do this.

I don't think 1 or 2 would do much. More political parties would be better, but the parties do serve the purpose of informing the public and organizing strategy. I think people aren't smart enough, or don't pay enough attention, to figure out what the hell is going on now and if you took away the parties they would know even less.

I don't see the primaries as a problem, and you need some way to whittle down the candidates that a party offers.

Frankly, I think we need a new constitutional convention. Short of that, fixing redistricting is probably the only thing that can save us.

I don't think 1 or 2 would do much. More political parties would be better, but the parties do serve the purpose of informing the public and organizing strategy. I think people aren't smart enough, or don't pay enough attention, to figure out what the hell is going on now and if you took away the parties they would know even less.

I don't see the primaries as a problem, and you need some way to whittle down the candidates that a party offers.

Frankly, I think we need a new constitutional convention. Short of that, fixing redistricting is probably the only thing that can save us.

Yea but informing them of what. We have seen how this works. The news networks owned by republican or democrats only spin messages to favor them. It is even harder for people to find out the truth and voice their own opinion because they are being fed the opinions already.

Primaries are a problem because they don't give the people a choice. When the choices are bad and worse, it really is disheartening.

No, we do not need a new constitutional convention. Our constitution was created by brilliant men, we have none of those now. Never before was their a collection of men who were historians, philosophers, and civil servants. You are just asking for something strong handed, and idiotic if you ask our generations to come up with some semblance of government.

One of the best things I think is it would force the voter to actually educate themselves on who they are voting for instead of voting for a "D" or an "R".

I agree that voter education is important and seems to be lacking. However, not having parties could actually work the other way. Right now, voters have some idea about a candidates views/ideology based on the party he is a member of. If there were no parties and voters did not take the extra time required to educate themselves, they might be voting even more in the dark than they currently are. You assume that voters will automatically take the extra time needed to educate themselves, but I take a less optimistic view.

In my original post (#2 in the thread that was deleted), I said that I thought requiring voters to attend at least 1 town hall type meeting to be eligible to vote would is one thing that would be a more effective improvement than what Erik suggested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

I think these are good ideas. IMO it's something a good portion of the country would go for since I think most people are middle of the road politically. #3 might be a little tough since voters might have to implement some strategy and I don't trust that people are smart enough

Good point.

Do you think voter education could help re #3?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

I don't think 1 or 2 would do much. More political parties would be better, but the parties do serve the purpose of informing the public and organizing strategy. I think people aren't smart enough, or don't pay enough attention, to figure out what the hell is going on now and if you took away the parties they would know even less.

I don't see the primaries as a problem, and you need some way to whittle down the candidates that a party offers.

Frankly, I think we need a new constitutional convention. Short of that, fixing redistricting is probably the only thing that can save us.

Assuming that MVMac is correct that a lot of people are middle of the road, do you think there is the chance to create a significant 3rd party somewhere between the Republicans and Democrats? In the past, I have felt there were more similarities than differences between the two parties, but it seems like they are trying to stay more separate from each other rather than work together these days. If neither party ever had the chance to get a majority, it would force much more effort on coalition building to get anything done.

Not having primaries would:

1. Save money

2. Force candidates to have broader appeal right away.

Erik's #3 could be used to whittle down the candidates ASSUMING that MVMac is wrong and the voters could be made to understand how to properly list their 2nd, 3rd, etc choices. Of course, I think that having a list of 10 or more candidates listed WITHOUT a political party affiliation listed next to them would mean more voting in the dark unless you had more effective voter education.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I may sound like I'm really interested in politics because I like to discuss this stuff with you guys, but really, I'm with Erik. Outside of this website, and voting day, and John Stewart and Steven Colbert, my interest in politics is right "up" there with his. I mostly enjoy discussing with you guys because I'm learning about things, learning people's thought processes, learning how to debate, stuff like that.

So, the bottom line is, I don't know much about politics, but it seems to me like Erik's proposals would be good things.

On the other hand ... even without the labels of Democrat and Republican, a guy who runs for congress is still going to try and do whatever pleases those in his community, right? So maybe it won't make a difference? They're still going to vote the way they think they need to vote to keep their constituency happy ... and then hopefully continue to get re-elected.

But I like new ideas, and I like change, so I think it would be fun to try it out and see what happens!

I think Erik might be implying that congressman don't strictly vote to keep their constituency happy, but also must vote to keep their party happy as the party has lots of influence when it comes to fund raising and who to support/endorse. Without the help of one of the two major parties, it is very difficult to get elected. Assuming that is what Erik is thinking, then getting rid of the parties may help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I think the party system pushes candidates towards the extremes. They'll decide who to back. The governor will decide which local guy to "favor." The President will subtly "endorse" the candidate that the party says he should endorse. And so on.

That's why I included the bit about eliminating primaries. The primaries allow the parties to winnow down the candidates to one, then those candidates run to the extreme edges of their parties to shore up their party votes. A candidate who, to make something up, is opposed to laws preventing gay marriage but also in favor of guns is a candidate without a party (and thus, without any backing).

So parties encourage extremism, primaries encourage the parties to take the "winner" and push them to the extremes, and if we do away with those, we might have six choices for any office on voting day, so you implement instant runoff voting as a means of determining a winner.

At least, that's the thought…

As of right now four people have proven themselves incapable of reading either the first OR second posts and have had their posts deleted.

Seriously, people, they're not long posts. This thread is not about "tell me your ideas for improving politics." Read the first or second post.

I agree that primaries push candidates to stay within their parties platform/ideology to win the primary election, but think that after the primary is done, some candidates try to move more to the center to win the general election (without stepping on the toes of their party supporters). I think some party strategists have realized that electing "too extreme a candidate" can lead to poor general election results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

I agree 100% on the first part. Political parties have become the bane to our political system. Not sure if you can ever get rid of them. You would probably have to make redistricting work in a way were it is competitive for every seat. Also destroy the whole political party machine that has created all these super PAC's. I think there needs to be some creative rule making.

Agree with the 2nd point. It is such a power grab by the political parties to hold Americans hostage on who they have the right to elect.

Here's the thing, how do you stop them from still banding together. You can drop labels, it still doesn't stop them from bringing together an agenda, hence a shadow party.

I agree that the Political Parties create a lot of problems (people feel they are "wasting" their vote if they don't vote for a D or R) and also agree that the $ the party raises (directly and indirectly) make it hard for a non D/R to even have a chance. Assuming that you are right about shadow parties (or not being able to get rid of them in the first place), then maybe Erik's #1 is pointless.

As I stated in my deleted post #2, I think Campaign Finance Reform and major restrictions on Lobbyists/Special Interest Groups would be a more effective improvement. PACs should be included in this reform also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

What I'll propose is flat out never going to happen (not in the next 50 years), but join me on a thought experiment. Tell me why this would fail to improve politics in the United States. Or tell me if you think it would work.

I'd propose three things to improve politics in the United States:

Do away with political parties.

Do away with the primaries.

Implement instant runoff voting.

My interest in politics is barely above nil, but I'm curious enough to know what people think of the above.

It is good to see a thread like this and my hat is off to Erik for starting it! The more this thread has evolved, the more I see the potential merit of Erik's ideas and what he would view as a positive outcome.

With that said, the first post doesn't state exactly what the problem is and what the goal is of the solution. While some of these may have become obvious throughout the thread (or are obvious to anyone living in the USA), I think there has been too much censorship on the part of the moderators. I was the first to reply to Erik and see that my entire post was deleted.

Given that Erik admits that his proposals will "flat out never...happen...in the next 50 years" I am not sure why discussing proposals that might have more of a chance of happening and/or might help fix the problems Erik is trying to address is considered so far off topic to warrant being deleted??

A question for Erik- What is the end goal? What EXACTLY do you see as the problems you are trying to fix? I see your post #4, but what exactly is wrong with "Extremism"?

Personally, I think it is good to have a variety of ideas and be willing to think outside the box, but feel it is a problem when those running the country get fixated on a single position with a single issue and refuse to budge or compromise to take action when needed. With that said, I remember reading years ago that the stock market (or maybe it was some economic number) tends to do much better when the President and Congress (or maybe the Senate and House) are divided rather than when they are run by the same party. There could be many reasons for this (if true), but the explanation I remember was that it was better for business & the economy when Washington did less rather than more.

I like the idea of it on the surface, but don't know how you would enforce it. How do you tell people they can't consider themselves a republican or a democrat? How do you tell them they can't meet to discuss ideas? Maybe I misunderstand. But if we can't abolish them, I'd love to see many more of them. Having only 2 political ideologies is ridiculous. It does something to the psyche of a person who has come to identify with a certain group.

I have a couple of friends: Nina who is a complete liberal and Robert who is a complete conservative. They identify with the party and hate the other. If you are to point out a possible shortcoming of their party or a good idea from the other party - it never occurs to them to consider it as a stand alone idea. What happens is they immediately defend their party's position. It is an immediate and emotional reaction. And I think an overwhelming amount of people in this country do this. I think so many people do this that I have quit holding it against them. It must be human nature. But people are taking a side before they even consider the issue fully. There is no way that many people fall into those 2 ideologies. We've got to get people to listen to something besides what their own party / talking heads / previously held ideologies are telling them. And that has nothing to do with politicians.

Many folks are disgusted with what is going on in the GOP - on both sides. But I think it is very interesting. If it could break into 2-3 parties, I think that is a good thing. But what I actually think is going to happen is we are about to become a one-party system. Pubs might win Gov'ner races and Rep/Senator races for a while, but I think the presidency is a lock for Demos for a while to come. And maybe we end up with different factions of that party.

Do away with the primaries.

Once again, I have no problem on the surface - but it seems it would result in a whole lot of folks on the ballot.

Implement instant runoff voting.

Not sure about this one. It seems to take away a person's voice a bit. If you like candidate A the most and C second most - you never get to voice any support for C. Right?

Assuming that MVMac is correct that a lot of people are middle of the road, do you think there is the chance to create a significant 3rd party somewhere between the Republicans and Democrats?

I think even if you keep the political parties and get rid of primaries you're going to get more moderate Republicans/Democrats. It would be interesting to see who people gravitate more towards. I could see the emergence of a 3rd party that's a legitimate contender.

Hell no. I hate the politics of all kinds if stuff let alone actual politics.

Tough s**t! It's too late ... you can't stop this train now.

Mike's already started the petition, and I've already signed it.

I presume that your first order of business will be to duplicate the Golf Evolution headquarters at the White House? And when you do, try and use a slightly higher percentage of taxes from Florida ... @David in FL likes paying for other peoples goodies) ;)

Yea but informing them of what. We have seen how this works. The news networks owned by republican or democrats only spin messages to favor them. It is even harder for people to find out the truth and voice their own opinion because they are being fed the opinions already.

Primaries are a problem because they don't give the people a choice. When the choices are bad and worse, it really is disheartening.

No, we do not need a new constitutional convention. Our constitution was created by brilliant men, we have none of those now. Never before was their a collection of men who were historians, philosophers, and civil servants. You are just asking for something strong handed, and idiotic if you ask our generations to come up with some semblance of government.

That's just flat out ridiculous. The good old days argument. Culture in 1787 and 2013 is so dissimilar that "brilliant men" (women???) wear different clothes, but are brilliant in their own ways.

I agree with political parties allowing voters to know what their politicians' general positions are. Today, how could a voter with a job, family, kids, and a life possibly have time to make an intelligent decision about a host of candidates with no party label slapped on them? Add in state and local elections and it would require a graduate research project every November to know which candidates to vote for. The two-party system has disadvantages, but it serves a purpose.

That's just flat out ridiculous. The good old days argument. Culture in 1787 and 2013 is so dissimilar that "brilliant men" (women???) wear different clothes, but are brilliant in their own ways.

I agree with political parties allowing voters to know what their politicians' general positions are. Today, how could a voter with a job, family, kids, and a life possibly have time to make an intelligent decision about a host of candidates with no party label slapped on them? Add in state and local elections and it would require a graduate research project every November to know which candidates to vote for. The two-party system has disadvantages, but it serves a purpose.

Here's the thing, is making a decision between one party or the other an intelligent one?

Sure, that is the goal of this thread, but normally a person does not suggest an improvement (or 3) unless they see a problem. I'll agree that the "extremism" & stubborn lack of cooperation in DC caused the Government shutdown, but other than that, how have DC politics hurt the nation as a whole? I am not saying that there is nothing to improve upon, just wondering what you thought we needed to improve upon when you started the thread. Unless you know what the problem is, it is hard to come up with a solution.

So is the root problem that there is no compromise/coalition building in DC or is it something like our growing National Debt? We have had times where the guys in DC have been able to agree on things (with some compromises) and in most cases, the government has still continued to run a deficit (under both Rep and Dems with the exception of a few years during the dot com boom).

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

I think even if you keep the political parties and get rid of primaries you're going to get more moderate Republicans/Democrats. It would be interesting to see who people gravitate more towards. I could see the emergence of a 3rd party that's a legitimate contender.

I agree that getting rid of primaries would likely lead to more moderate Rep/Dems. I can't comment on whether more moderates would be an improvement unless I know the problem that we are trying to solve. Put another way, yes more moderates might lead to less DC gridlock, but I am not sure that it will lead to better long term legislation.

I think a legitimate 3rd party contender would be helped most by proportional voting (I briefly saw this mentioned by another poster before it was deleted) and by campaign spending limits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmoan2

I agree with political parties allowing voters to know what their politicians' general positions are. Today, how could a voter with a job, family, kids, and a life possibly have time to make an intelligent decision about a host of candidates with no party label slapped on them? Add in state and local elections and it would require a graduate research project every November to know which candidates to vote for. The two-party system has disadvantages, but it serves a purpose.

I agree that taking the time to know all the issues and candidates is more than a full time job. That is why most people don't even bother to get informed on more than a surface level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Here's the thing, is making a decision between one party or the other an intelligent one?

Not really, but it might be better than nothing.

The good thing about the whole fiasco in Washington is that it does get people a bit more engaged, at least temporarily. We can blame the politicians all we want, but the reason they can get away with the BS they do is because we let them. A democracy can be a good form of government, but it does require the voters to be engaged in what is going on.

What I really think we should do is have small micro political groups of friends, families and neighbors. Each person in the group picks an issue/candidate that they research more thoroughly and report back to the group in a social setting. Alternatively, maybe we should have more of a representative democracy than we currently do- I mean how can hundreds of thousands of people know someone well enough to vote on them and be able to trust them to vote right in DC.

Here's the thing, is making a decision between one party or the other an intelligent one?

Yes. Most issues have two general ways to look at it. That's how political parties, which Washington and Adams so vehemently opposed, formed. Politicians found that generally "these guys said one thing, and these guys said the other," so parties almost naturally formed. Don't forget also, back in the old days, state and local politics were more important than national politics. People from Virginia were generally one generation removed from wealthy British landowners while Massachusetts folk were here 100 years or more here already and were outcasts from Britain. They could barely hold the Union together at that point. National political parties made it easier to advertise a political platform. The same holds true for state and local politics now. Be honest - when you vote now, how much research do you do on the Superior Court judges running for office in your district? Your state legislators? Even the nat'l senators? At least a Dem or Rep next to their name lets you know generally what they stand for.

The primary process is an opportunity to vote for the candidate that most aligns with your beliefs. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney were both GOP in 2012, but had decidedly different platforms within the party. Allowing people to vote in runoffs is an interesting system that works in some local and state systems, but I'm not sure how it would fly on the national stage.

Yes. Most issues have two general ways to look at it. That's how political parties, which Washington and Adams so vehemently opposed, formed. Politicians found that generally "these guys said one thing, and these guys said the other," so parties almost naturally formed. Don't forget also, back in the old days, state and local politics were more important than national politics. People from Virginia were generally one generation removed from wealthy British landowners while Massachusetts folk were here 100 years or more here already and were outcasts from Britain. They could barely hold the Union together at that point. National political parties made it easier to advertise a political platform. The same holds true for state and local politics now. Be honest - when you vote now, how much research do you do on the Superior Court judges running for office in your district? Your state legislators? Even the nat'l senators? At least a Dem or Rep next to their name lets you know generally what they stand for.

The primary process is an opportunity to vote for the candidate that most aligns with your beliefs. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney were both GOP in 2012, but had decidedly different platforms within the party. Allowing people to vote in runoffs is an interesting system that works in some local and state systems, but I'm not sure how it would fly on the national stage.

A pretty decent amount. I will Google them, read up on what they support. Usually most people run unopposed as well.

Yea, but is that the true intent of the Government or just a back door way of getting cheap votes?

Still, I rather see lets say 3 republicans versus 3 democrats in the presidential race, not 1 on 1. I kinda feel it forces people to choose the lesser of two evils. I know they could still run, I think Ron Paul thought about running as an Independent. Most don't because it usually detracts from one of the other candidates, so more harm than good. I still think getting more options out there is the best way to go.

A pretty decent amount. I will Google them, read up on what they support. Usually most people run unopposed as well.

Yea, but is that the true intent of the Government or just a back door way of getting cheap votes?

Still, I rather see lets say 3 republicans versus 3 democrats in the presidential race, not 1 on 1. I kinda feel it forces people to choose the lesser of two evils. I know they could still run, I think Ron Paul thought about running as an Independent. Most don't because it usually detracts from one of the other candidates, so more harm than good. I still think getting more options out there is the best way to go.

To some extent, Erik's 3 ideas work together. If you still have political parties, but do away with primaries and don't have instant run offs, then the party that puts more candidates on the ballot will almost certainly lose. i.e. 3 or 4 Dems vs 1 or 2 Republicans. Who will win? So, the parties will do all they can to only put 1 guy on the ballot. Even if you "do away with political parties" my guess is that the serious politicians would horse trade before the election based on early survey numbers so that guys with similar views don't steal votes from each other letting a guy with opposing views win (assuming you implement 1 & 2 but not 3).

I did the same sort of research as you for the last election, but do you think the majority of people do?

A pretty decent amount. I will Google them, read up on what they support. Usually most people run unopposed as well.

Yea, but is that the true intent of the Government or just a back door way of getting cheap votes?

Still, I rather see lets say 3 republicans versus 3 democrats in the presidential race, not 1 on 1. I kinda feel it forces people to choose the lesser of two evils. I know they could still run, I think Ron Paul thought about running as an Independent. Most don't because it usually detracts from one of the other candidates, so more harm than good. I still think getting more options out there is the best way to go.

If you do that, good for you. 95% of the country doesn't. 65% of the country can't name one Supreme Court Justice. 25% think New York City is the nation's capital. That's why we have a representative democracy and not a pure one.

BTW, I don;t know that it's always the lesser of two evils. People tend to be pretty cynical these days. I don't think Reagan, Clinton, or H.W. Bush were the lesser of two evils. I think they were the superior candidates in their respective primaries by a long shot. Obama and Hillary were a toss-up for me, but I preferred Romney to McCain in 2008. Come to think of it, I think the better candidate usually makes it through the primary.